IR 05000461/1989035
| ML19332F685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1989 |
| From: | Foster J, Snell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332F680 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-89-35, NUDOCS 8912180130 | |
| Download: ML19332F685 (9) | |
Text
y
.
.
-
.
"r m. #
.
.
<c s
n
,,y
,
w
.-
,
[,
-
,
,
i
,
-U.
S.< NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION.
>
REGION III
,
e
,
,
i
iReportiNo. 50 461/89035(DRSS);
j
,
-;
u I"
Docket No.L'50a4611
- License-No NPF-62
.
.
!!f
.
Licensee:. Illinois Power Company
'
'
5007 South 27th Street'
Decatur,'IL 62525-
?!
>
.'
Facility-Name: :.Clinton Nuclear Power Station,-Unit 1-
,
? Inspection'At: _Clinton: Site, Clinton, Illinois (
~ Inspection Conducted:
November 13-17, 1989 (
.
in h4s H
LInspectors:
J.
it r
Team Leader Date
Accompanying Personnel:
-D. Barss
W. M
.
.
W.'Snell, Chief-i2.h/s.i
?
1 Approved By:
.
LRadiological Controls ande
.
Date
. Emergency Preparedness Section
Inspection Summary
.
Inspection on November-13-17, 1989 (Report No. 50-461/89035(DRSS))
m
.Areaselnspected:
Routine, announced. inspection of the following areas of the
-
Clinton emergency preparedness program; followup on actual emergency plan
~!
activations (IP 92700); and operational status of the emergency preparedness program (IP'82701).
The inspection involved two NRC inspectors.
Results: One -violation,.regarding retraining of individuals assigned
.
_responsibil.ities in the Emergency Response Organization, was identified during
+
,.
this inspection. Other areas of the emergency response program were well L
maintained, with some significant improvements to the program presently in the L:
planning stages. Minor enhancements to the program have been made since the
'
'
last" inspection.
.
[-
f.$k21ggg@$$$
gi a
y i
w
y
.
v.
,;.c
,
_.,
c.:
t a
,
p'
-
+
DETAILS-1.
Persons Contacted
<
_ J. Perry,. Assistant' Vice President
'
g"
- D. Waddel, Director, Emergency Response
_;
- R.1Gardner, Supervisor, Emergency Planning
- J. - Weaver, Director, Licensing r
g
>
'
- W. Yaroz, Supervisor, Emergency-Exercises
- R. Wyatt, Manager, Nuclear Training
- R. Kerestes, Director,' Engineering,
- R. Campbell, Manager, QA
- J. Miller,. Manager,-SOM-
,
"
- G. Bell, Director,. Material Management c
- D.; Morris, Director, Plant Operations
- M. Hollow,1 Technical Advisor, NPAG
- J. Greenwood, Soyland Co-op Representative-
J. Brownell, Project Engineer / Specialist E
.
- Denotes those personnel listed above who attended the exit interview on'
' November-17, 1989.
The-inspector-also contacted other members of_the licensee's staff.during the-course of the inspection.
2.
Emergency Plan Activations (IP 92700)
Licensee and NRC records of actual _ emergency plan activations for the
'
4 -
period January 1989 through November 1989 were reviewed.
During this
,
time period-the licensee had one Unusual Event, and an event which was-initially declared as an Unusual Event and then rapidly escalated to an-Alert.
On January 2,1989, an Unusua'l Event was declared due to initiation of a -
reactor shutdown per Technical Specification requirements.
NRC records L
indicated that proper notifications had been made.
A~ review of the Technical Specification indicated that a typographical error had been inadvertently included.
Information regarding this event was also
'
submitted as Licensee Event Report (LER) No. 89-002-00.
On June 1, 1989, at 0045 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br />, with reactor power at approximately 40%,
l Control' Room Operators noted a pressure drop on the seals for reactor recirculation pump "B"'.
Operators then checked the drywell floor drain sump flow and found it to be greater than 5 gallons per minute (GPM)
At 0055 hours6.365741e-4 days <br />0.0153 hours <br />9.093915e-5 weeks <br />2.09275e-5 months <br />,.the Shift Supervisor declared a Notification of Unusual Event due to unidentified primary leak rate greater than five GPM. This declaraticn was in accordance with the licensee Emergency Action Level scheme contained in Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure EC-02.
I
gc
-
-
n _
R,
.
j
'
^
'
y y-
,. :
+
m
.
L At 0056Lhours, the drywell drain flow rate had increased to 50 GPM; - At'
!
0100. hours, the Shif t Supervisor p. rop'erly dec'lared an~ Alert, again per
-
Procedure EC-02, based on thi increased' leak rate.
At' 0110 hours0.00127 days <br />0.0306 hours <br />1.818783e-4 weeks <br />4.1855e-5 months <br />, the StateL of Illinois was' notified of the Unusual Event
and subsequent 1 Alert. The NRC Operations Center was' notified of the event at 0140 hours0.00162 days <br />0.0389 hours <br />2.314815e-4 weeks <br />5.327e-5 months <br /> 'The NRC Resident Inspector was also notified.
e At.0140 hours0.00162 days <br />0.0389 hours <br />2.314815e-4 weeks <br />5.327e-5 months <br />', after isolating recirculation pump _"B", the leak' rate '
'
decreased to less than 5 GPM and the Shift Supervisor degraded the'-
emergency classification-to an Unusual Event. The Control Room Operators-
'
'
then commenced a normal plant shutdown. At 0350-hours,'the event was
,
terminated.
' !
In accordance with Licensee Procedure AP-03, Emergency Records; Retention, the licensee has assembled a package for this event which included the
.following documents:
Nuclear Accident Reporting System (NARS) messages from both the State an'd utility, event notification-worksheets,: excerpts-from both the Control Room Operator's and the Shift' Supervisor's Logs, copies of emergency' logs from the Technical Support Center (TSC),
Operational Support Center (OSC) and the Joint Public Information Center-
-(JPIC), habitability surveys for ~ the TSC, OSC, and Main Control. Room:
(MCR), OSC personnel muster logs, emergency-response facility activation
'
-
e and personnel-checklists, Clinton Power Station Condition Reports, Licensee Event Reports, event critique reports,-Emergency-Response
,
Organization (ERO) noti _fication logs and copies of JPIC news releases.
'
A' review of these documents indicated that the licensee had appropriately
-
classified the event in.accordance with approved procedures (EC-02). and-made'the necessary notifications'within the established time-requirements.
Two extensive critiques of this event were conducted.
One focused on the operational matters of concern and the other addressed the emergency
.
planning aspects. These critiques were reviewed by the NRC. Senior Resident Inspector, who had provided additional comments (additional information is included in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-461/89021).
From the critiques
-
and NRC comments, the licensee identified a total of 19 emergency planning problems.
Each of these problems was separately analyzed to determine the probable cause and an appropriate corrective action.
Corrective. actions on these items have either been completed or appropriately monitored on the licensee's Centralized Commitment Tracking (CCT) system.
The EP staff's evaluation of records ase 6ted with the single emergency plan activation was thorough, including cocaentation of any identified
- problems and associated corrective acti< z.
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable.
..
en
,
<
m l
,e c.; x
,
x;
-!
t
<
g 7(?
t
,
- 3L Operational Status of-the Emergency Preparedness Program (IP 82701)
f t'
a.
Emergency' Plan'and-Implementing Procedures
By letter' dated November '21, 1988, the licensee submitted a proposal p'
.to revise-a number of the Emergency Action Levels-(EALs) by deleting;
those initiating conditio'ns defined as non-emergency events in.
,.
'
10 CFR 50.72, "Immediate-Notification Requirements for Operating i
Nuclear Power Reactors." -The proposal was. innovative and matched an' industry initiative then being developed by the Nuclear Utilities Management and-Resource Council (NUMARC).; Approval of the ' proposed revisions to the Clinton.EALs was postponed pending review and comment on the NUMARC submittal'to the NRC. NRC Headquarters
[
currently has this. issue under review.
The proposed EAls had undergone onsite and offsite technical review e
. prior to submit _tal. Offsite agencies requested that, if-the' changes were implemented, they continue ~ to be notified -if the events
'
-
_
previously leading to an Unusual Event occurred.
The licensee indicated that these EALs would not be proceduralized until any significant NRC concerns have been resolved.
'
. Based upon the above findings, t'his portion of the licensee's-program was acceptable, b.
Emergency Response Facilities (ERFs). Equipment, and Supplies
.
.The Emergency Operations Facility (E0F), Technical Support Center (TSC), and Operations Support Center:(OSC) are dedicated facilities at this site.
Each was toured and was clean and ready for use.and was as described in the Emergency Plan and relevant EPIPs. The Emergency Notification System (ENS) " Red phone" to the NRC Duty Officer was tested in the TSC, Control Room, and EOF, and
'
functioned well.
In the EOF, new touchtone telephones have replaced older equipment.
A visit was made to the Control Room, and it was verified that current copies of the Emergency Plan and-Emergency Plan Implementing
-
Procedures were available.
In the TSC, new tables and chairs have replaced older equipment.
A computer terminal is now available for drill or exercise Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) displays.
It was noted that, as during the November,1988, inspection, various electrical wires / cables
,
still remain on the TSC floor, covered with tape.
The tape securing the wires / cables is now a bright blue, making the installation less of a trip hazard, although relocation of the wires / cables would be preferable.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that it is not currently planned to relocate these wires to other locations.
p
>
,
!
, I f) "*'
L
-
q
,
,
f
'
-In,the OSC, new tables and chairs'h' ave also replaced older:
equi pment'..The storage cabinets containing emergency response equipment were-inspected.
In general, the. equipment appeared in good working order, within acceptable calibration' dates, and in o
acceptable' quantities.
However, eight Teledyne.Model 211 " Big Beam"
lanterns, which utilize two lantern batteries, were found to have.
-
^
totally depleted l batteries.
One battery-had considerable leakage -
,
-into the lantern', and two' nearby boxes of standard "D" cells'(marked-
-
as tested October 3,1988) were suspect due to having -one or more reverely deteriorated batteries.
In another cabinet were supplies-
^
(two boxes of twelve each) of. lantern batteries which appeared F
functional' and additional supplies of standard "D" cells were on-
,
hand._ Twelve additional lanterns, Model No.108, single battery, were.found to be functional, j
It appeared that the-degradation of the " Big Beam" lantern batteries may have been due'to trickle discharge through the lantern circuits,
'
and these batteries might benefit-from storage outside of the lanterns.
In any case, improved surveillance and rotation of battery. supplies is needed.
It was also noted that the trauma, kit contained a bottle of sterile water displaying.an expiration date of October, 1989.
Discussion with EP personnel indicated that the problem of tracking / periodic replacement of perishable supplies contained in -
- i emergency kits had already been noted, and would be addressed by revising-the inventory procedure to require = identification of expiration dates; and, subsequently, these expiration dates would be entered into a computer database.
The computer database would then be utilized for perishable supply tracking and periodic replacement
.
as required. Work on the revised procedure had already been
initiated.
This was responsive to the inspector's concerns.
j a
A tour was made of the facility designated to act as the Joint
,
Public Information Center.
The facility was modern and impressive, with excellent facilities to provide for emergency news
-
communications and rumor control.
The backup E0F-was inspected and determined to be in an adequate state of readiness.
The facility is one of the better backup EOFs in NRC Region III.
Discussion with licensee personnel indicated that due to needed corrective action identified during a drill, the layout of the backup EOF is being revised to accommodate the additionti personnel which would result from the arrival of the NRC accident response team.
Review of completed checklists for the period January,1989, through
'
October,1989, indicated all procedurally required periodic communications equipment checks, siren tests, first aid supplies l
l
.
y s
e
-
,
,
'
& 4?
',
e
..
,
inventories, and inventories of Health Physics and office supplies reserved for'use by emergency responders had been completed.
'
- Locations addressed in these checklists included: onsite emergency-
';
response facilities, site gatehouse.. backup EOF, and community.
hospitals.
Inventory checklists specified minimum qualtities of.
'
-items and required. verification of the supplies' locations.-
+
Inventory-procedures included provisions for conducting ' inventories '
after use of the supplies or folloving-discovery of'an unsealed
,
supply container.
Records reviewed indicated that all problems-d identified during inventories and communications equipment checks'
had been corrected in a timely manner.
'
Based upon the above findings,lthis. portion of'the licensee's
'
-
. program was acceptable.-
~
,
c.
Organization'and Management Control
~
.
The overall Emergency Preparedness organization remains essentially -
unchanged from that in place during the previous routine inspection.
. The Oirector Emergency Respons'e is now Mr.- Don Waddel, and he reports to the Manager -: Licensing and Safety..The remainder of the:
organization consists of the Supervisor - Emergency. Planning, thel
'
Supervisor _- Emergency Exercises, two Emergency planners and a
."
Clerk / Typist.
Duties of the individuals in the Emergency Planning group have been'
better defined and responsibilities regarding the-planning and.
exercise-groups were.more appropriately divided. At the end'of August, 1989, the group began _ production of a monthly Emergency Response Performance Report which documents the monthly activities o
and trends progress towards achieving-goals regarding drill
.
attendance, number of open drill critique items, siren operability statistics, and number of hours for which drills were conducted.
This report,provides additional upper management cognizance ~of emergency preparedness' activities.
The public information pamphlet has been replaced by a calendar which incorporates the same information as the pamphlet.
The calendar is in the process of being printed and will be mailed to j
residents in the ten-mile Emergency Planning Zone.
Based upon-the above findings, this portion of the licensee's
.
program was acceptable.
'
G d.
Training A special group had been formed to determine ways to motivate plant personnel to participate in the emergency resporse organization.
This group had made several recommendations to management, with most recommendations being approved.
l-
L
-
(7
.
- -
%
s The Emergency Plan requires the following functional: drills: monthly
?
communications drill's (communication checks),' semiannual callout drill,' annual medical drill,._ annual radiation monitoring drill, r,
. biannual health physics drill, and annual Post Accident.. Sampling (PASS): drill. An annual emergency exercise-is aise required.-
Preparation'and conduct of these emergency drillsv are described in -
Procedure AP-04. _Although not a commitment, the li_censee'also
_
conducts several other types of individua1 ' facility and ".i@ rated Emergency Response Facility" drillsL andfan exercise." dress,warsal"-
'
.in-preparation for the annual graded emergency exercise.
0ver thirty-five drills / exercises had been performed.in 1989.~ Records -
~
' ndicated that all required EP drills had been:successfully conducted.
i
-
well critiqued, and_ adequately documented during 1989.
Exerci se/ drill '
critique items had resulted in-several: corrective actions.
.The Emergency' Plan delineates _ initial training and annual retraining -
- requirements :.n Section 5.4, and _ references a training matrix of.
required courses in Administrative Procedure AP-05. ' Discussion.with licensee personnel = indicated that an.. individual is generally-not considered as qualified for an Emergency Response Organization position prior to completion of initial training and participation in a drill.or exercise. The individual is then placed on a listing of ER0' members.
However, there is no provision for removal of an individual from the
. ER0-listing if they have not completed the required annual
. ret ra i ni ng.- Additionally, the training department does not maintain:
a computerized system for tracking ER0' retraining dates, but relies-on the personal knowledge.of one of-~the assigned training personnel-to recognize if an individual had not completed annual: retraining (utilizing an acceptable 12 to 15 month. retraining period).
~
A random sample of 24 individuals was selected and training records
!
' reviewed to determine if they had completed all training requirements.
l Of these, two individuals had not completed required retraining i
in over 16 months.
Several other individuals had not completed their
.l retraining in over 12 months.
This is a violation (No. 461/89035-01).
-l Two individuals, both assigned technical positions in the Emergency
Operations facility, were interviewed regarding their emergency duties and responsibilities.
Both were knowledgeable of their i
J'
duties and the procedures applicable to their positions.
!
Annual Media briefing was scheduled for December, 1989, and the
'
training for DeWitt County /Clinton Emergency Services emergency
,
responders was scheduled for November 30, 1989.
j Based upon the above findings, with the exception of the single violation, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable.
t
p,,
-
--
g
-
.
-
g
,
,
[6[
p-[
,
,
-
.
>In'ependent Reviews / Audits-d F
e.
Qualit'y' Assurance (QA) Department records of the 1989. audit of the-L Station's EP. program were reviewed. All records were complete and-readily available.__ Audit Q38-89-23, addressing Emergency Planning,.
- was performed September 11-29, 1989.- The. post-Audit-Conference was
-
-
held on.0ctober 24, 1989,- and the audit. report was reviewed in draft'
-form at the~ time of this inspection.=
-
The-audit concluded that, based on the activities observed,
-
,
' documentation reviewed ^and interviews with plant Dersonnel and State-e'
~and. local support agency representatives, Emergency Planning was i,
considered to be effective.
The audit was comprehensive-and included observation of an integrated drill involving the. Technical Support -
Center, the Operations Support Center, the Emergency Operations-Facility, the Joint Public Information Center, and _the Headquarters
'
,
Support Center.- The audit resulted in six recommendations for program-
' improvement-and one audit finding regarding lack of objective evidence verifying that preventative maintenance of the meteorologicalctower had been -performed during-July. and August,1989.
A similar f_inding-
was issued during last year's audit.
The audit did not identify I
the retraining defiency noted in Section 3.d of this report.
'
-A supplement'to Audit Report Q38-89-23 specifically addressed the resultsiof the audit associated with offsite agency interfaces..
c
State'and local government' agencies were contacted during the audit.
Offsite agency representatives indicated that appropriate interfaces had been established and their questions and concerns had been
,
addressed. Offsite agency interfaces were therefore-judged to be
'
effective, and the 1989 audit satisfied the requirements-of 10 CFR 50.54(t) regarding review of the adequacy of the interface with offsite authorities.
Also reviewed was the 1989 annual review of the CPS Emergency
'
Preparedness Program conducted in accordance with Corporate Nuclear Procedure 4.03, Emergency Preparedness Program.
This annual evaluation was completed during the third quarter of 1989, and the report was finalized on October 2, 1989.
The review encompassed the following documents which were reviewed for compliance with i
requirements, consistency, and identification of any necessary changes:
,
NPS No. 4, Emergency preparedness CNP 4.03, Emergency Preparedness Program GP 2.48, Clinton Power Station Emergency Response Coverage CPS Emergency Plan q
CPS Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures s
Illinois Plan for Radiological Accidents
-
$ $ ll
x;,4wo
~-
(
.-
. In addition'to the'various program reviews-described earlier, the the Emergency Planning Group undertook an intensive review of the entire Emergency Planning Program to establish short and long-term
_
. initiatives to. improve'the productivity of the group, the quality of emergency. training,L overall site emergency readiness, and;the attitude of Emergency Response Organization members. 1The results of the group's review, documented via memo; dated November 7, 1989, were forty-two individual initiatives.
Some of these initiatives were minor in nature, and were already in the process of implementation.
Some' initiatives were long-term goals which would take well over a year to accomplish. The effort appeared commendable, including-identifying areas ~ which could be discontinued as unneeded and those which required more emphasis to improve the overall program.
Critiques from emergency drills and exercises conducted since the last review were also reviewed for identification of adverse trends.
The comments. developed as a result of the evaluation were considered minor in nature and would not adversely effect the successful implementation of the CPS Emergency Plan. Most of the changes related to organizational changes and minor' enhancements which had occurred after the documents were approved.
Emergency Preparedness Action Lists track drill critique. comments.
,
Drill comments not resolved within two weeks are entered and tracked by-the Centralized Commitment Tracking 5> stem.
The majority of-drill comments concerned either equipment or training, and it was
. again recommended that a long term goal be established to make Emergency Response Organization (ERO) training position specific.
Based upon the above findings, this portion of the licensee's program was acceptable, j
4.
Exit Interview (IP 30703)
On November 17, 1989, the inspector met with those licensee j
representatives identified in Section 1 to present the preliminary
~
inspection findings. The licensee was advised that the majority of the emergency response program was well maintained, with some significant
'
improvements to the program presently in the planning stages. Minor
,
enhancements to the program were noted to have been made since the last
inspection. One violation, regarding retraining of individuals assigned
responsibilities in the Emergency Response Organization, was identified during the inspection.
.
!
The licensee indicated that none of the matters discussed during the exit
interview were proprietary.
s
l l
1
_j L
'